Technical Errors and Artifacts Causing Mistakes in Musculoskeletal Imaging

Yet Yen Yan; Wilfred C.G. Peh

doi:10.1055/s-0044-1800852

Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology, Table of Contents

Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2025; 29(05): 791-806
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1800852

Review Article

Technical Errors and Artifacts Causing Mistakes in Musculoskeletal Imaging

Authors

Yet Yen Yan

¹Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mount Elizabeth Hospital, Singapore, Republic of Singapore
Wilfred C.G. Peh

²Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Republic of Singapore

Abstract

Imaging, an essential diagnostic tool found ubiquitously in modern clinical practice, is particularly useful for evaluating musculoskeletal (MSK) pathology. However, technical errors in imaging and imaging artifacts are pitfalls that frequently diminish image quality and may lead to misinterpretation of radiologic studies by radiologists and clinicians. This review describes the causes and imaging appearances of the more common and important MSK imaging technical errors and artifacts in radiography, ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and MSK intervention that may potentially lead to erroneous interpretation. Where applicable, strategies to mitigate the impact of these pitfalls are also discussed.

Keywords

computed tomography artifacts - interventional radiology pitfalls - magnetic resonance imaging artifacts - musculoskeletal imaging pitfalls - ultrasound artifacts

Full Text

References

References
1 Low KTA, Peh WCG. Radiography limitations and pitfalls. In: Peh WCG. ed. Pitfalls in Musculoskeletal Radiology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017: 3-32
2 Yan YY, Holmes RD, Mallinson PI, Andrews GT, Munk PL, Ouellette HA. Imaging review of hockey-related upper extremity injuries. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2022; 26 (01) 3-12
3 Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188 (06) 1540-1552
4 Walz-Flannigan AI, Brossoit KJ, Magnuson DJ, Schueler BA. Pictorial review of digital radiography artifacts. Radiographics 2018; 38 (03) 833-846
5 Alexander RG, Yazdanie F, Waite S. et al. Visual illusions in radiology: untrue perceptions in medical images and their implications for diagnostic accuracy. Front Neurosci 2021; 15: 629469
6 Gimber LH, Taljanovic MS. Ultrasound imaging artifacts. In: Peh WCG. ed. Pitfalls in Musculoskeletal Radiology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017: 33-44
7 Feldman MK, Katyal S, Blackwood MS. US artifacts. Radiographics 2009; 29 (04) 1179-1189
8 Taljanovic MS, Melville DM, Scalcione LR, Gimber LH, Lorenz EJ, Witte RS. Artifacts in musculoskeletal ultrasonography. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2014; 18 (01) 3-11
9 Jamadar DA, Robertson BL, Jacobson JA. et al. Musculoskeletal sonography: important imaging pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194 (01) 216-225
10 Nilsson A. Artefacts in sonography and Doppler. Eur Radiol 2001; 11 (08) 1308-1315
11 Wu WT, Chang KV, Hsu YC, Hsu PC, Ricci V, Özçakar L. Artifacts in musculoskeletal ultrasonography: from physics to clinics. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020; 10 (09) 645
12 Smith E, Azzopardi C, Thaker S, Botchu R, Gupta H. Power Doppler in musculoskeletal ultrasound: uses, pitfalls and principles to overcome its shortcomings. J Ultrasound 2021; 24 (02) 151-156
13 Rubens DJ, Bhatt S, Nedelka S, Cullinan J. Doppler artifacts and pitfalls. Radiol Clin North Am 2006; 44 (06) 805-835
14 Boas FE, Fleischmann D. CT artifacts: causes and reduction techniques. Imaging Med 2012; 4 (02) 229-240
15 Coupal TM, Mallinson PI, McLaughlin P, Nicolaou S, Munk PL, Ouellette H. Peering through the glare: using dual-energy CT to overcome the problem of metal artefacts in bone radiology. Skeletal Radiol 2014; 43 (05) 567-575
16 Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 2004; 24 (06) 1679-1691
17 Katsura M, Sato J, Akahane M, Kunimatsu A, Abe O. Current and novel techniques for metal artifact reduction at CT: practical guide for radiologists. Radiographics 2018; 38 (02) 450-461
18 Lin XZ, Miao F, Li JY, Dong HP, Shen Y, Chen KM. High-definition CT Gemstone spectral imaging of the brain: initial results of selecting optimal monochromatic image for beam-hardening artifacts and image noise reduction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011; 35 (02) 294-297
19 Boas FE, Fleischmann D. Evaluation of two iterative techniques for reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography. Radiology 2011; 259 (03) 894-902
20 Lee MJ, Kim S, Lee SA. et al. Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics 2007; 27 (03) 791-803
21 Yadava GK, Pal D, Hsieh J. Reduction of metal artifacts: beam hardening and photon starvation effects. In: Medical Imaging 2014: Physics of Medical Imaging. Vol 9033. Bellingham, WA: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers; 2014: 816-823
22 Yu L, Leng S, McCollough CH. Dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199 (5, Suppl): S9-S15
23 Kidoh M, Utsunomiya D, Oda S. et al. CT venography after knee replacement surgery: comparison of dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging and single-energy metal artifact reduction techniques on a 320-row CT scanner. Acta Radiol Open 2017; 6 (02) 2058460117693463
24 Han SC, Chung YE, Lee YH, Park KK, Kim MJ, Kim KW. Metal artifact reduction software used with abdominopelvic dual-energy CT of patients with metal hip prostheses: assessment of image quality and clinical feasibility. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203 (04) 788-795
25 Andersson KM, Norrman E, Geijer H. et al. Visual grading evaluation of commercially available metal artefact reduction techniques in hip prosthesis computed tomography. Br J Radiol 2016; 89 (1063): 20150993
26 Jung H. Basic physical principles and clinical applications of computed tomography. Prog Med Phys 2021; 32 (01) 1-17
27 Fleischmann D, Boas FE. Computed tomography—old ideas and new technology. Eur Radiol 2011; 21 (03) 510-517
28 Miller-Thomas MM, West OC, Cohen AM. Diagnosing traumatic arterial injury in the extremities with CT angiography: pearls and pitfalls. Radiographics 2005; 25 (Suppl. 01) S133-S142
29 Buckwalter KA, Lin C, Ford JM. Managing postoperative artifacts on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2011; 15 (04) 309-319
30 Ho KCT, Saevarsson SK, Ramm H. et al. Computed tomography analysis of knee pose and geometry before and after total knee arthroplasty. J Biomech 2012; 45 (13) 2215-2221
31 Demirpolat G, Yüksel M, Kavukçu G, Tuncel D. Carotid CT angiography: comparison of image quality for left versus right arm injections. Diagn Interv Radiol 2011; 17 (03) 195-198
32 Mallinson PI, Coupal TM, McLaughlin PD, Nicolaou S, Munk PL, Ouellette HA. Dual-energy CT for the musculoskeletal system. Radiology 2016; 281 (03) 690-707
33 Rajiah P, Sundaram M, Subhas N. Dual-energy CT in musculoskeletal imaging: what is the role beyond gout?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 213 (03) 493-505
34 Pache G, Krauss B, Strohm P. et al. Dual-energy CT virtual noncalcium technique: detecting posttraumatic bone marrow lesions—feasibility study. Radiology 2010; 256 (02) 617-624
35 Yan YY, Ouellette HA, Saththianathan M, Munk PL, Mallinson PI, Sheikh A. The role of a virtual noncalcium dual-energy CT application in the detection of bone marrow edema in peripheral osteomyelitis. Can Assoc Radiol J 2022; 73 (03) 549-556
36 Cheong SCW, Yan YY, Sheikh A. et al. Dual-energy CT applications in musculoskeletal disorders. Br J Radiol 2024; 97 (1156): 705-715
37 Wang CK, Tsai JM, Chuang MT, Wang MT, Huang KY, Lin RM. Bone marrow edema in vertebral compression fractures: detection with dual-energy CT. Radiology 2013; 269 (02) 525-533
38 Suh CH, Yun SJ, Jin W, Lee SH, Park SY, Ryu CW. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT for the detection of bone marrow oedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (10) 4182-4194
39 Carrino JA, Al Muhit A, Zbijewski W. et al. Dedicated cone-beam CT system for extremity imaging. Radiology 2014; 270 (03) 816-824
40 Sisniega A, Zbijewski W, Badal A. et al. Monte Carlo study of the effects of system geometry and antiscatter grids on cone-beam CT scatter distributions. Med Phys 2013; 40 (05) 051915
41 Carrino JA, Ibad H, Lin Y. et al. CT in musculoskeletal imaging: still helpful and for what?. Skeletal Radiol 2024; 53 (09) 1711-1725
42 Schafer S, Stayman JW, Zbijewski W, Schmidgunst C, Kleinszig G, Siewerdsen JH. Antiscatter grids in mobile C-arm cone-beam CT: effect on image quality and dose. Med Phys 2012; 39 (01) 153-159
43 Zhuo J, Gullapalli RP. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: MR artifacts, safety, and quality control. Radiographics 2006; 26 (01) 275-297
44 Singh DR, Rumpel H, Chin MSM, Peh WCG. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts. In: Peh WCG. ed. Pitfalls in Musculoskeletal Radiology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017: 61-81
45 Morelli JN, Runge VM, Ai F. et al. An image-based approach to understanding the physics of MR artifacts. Radiographics 2011; 31 (03) 849-866
46 Singh DR, Chin MSM, Peh WCG. Artifacts in musculoskeletal MR imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2014; 18 (01) 12-22
47 Peh WCG, Chan JHM. Artifacts in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging: identification and correction. Skeletal Radiol 2001; 30 (04) 179-191
48 Del Grande F, Guggenberger R, Fritz J. Rapid musculoskeletal MRI in 2021: value and optimized use of widely accessible techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 216 (03) 704-717
49 Fritz J, Guggenberger R, Del Grande F. Rapid musculoskeletal MRI in 2021: clinical application of advanced accelerated techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 216 (03) 718-733
50 Murthy S, Fritz J. Metal artifact reduction MRI in the diagnosis of periprosthetic hip joint infection. Radiology 2023; 306 (03) e220134
51 Cha JG, Jin W, Lee MH. et al. Reducing metallic artifacts in postoperative spinal imaging: usefulness of IDEAL contrast-enhanced T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging—phantom and clinical studies. Radiology 2011; 259 (03) 885-893
52 Khodarahmi I, Isaac A, Fishman EK, Dalili D, Fritz J. Metal about the hip and artifact reduction techniques: from basic concepts to advanced imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2019; 23 (03) e68-e81
53 Ulbrich EJ, Sutter R, Aguiar RF, Nittka M, Pfirrmann CW. STIR sequence with increased receiver bandwidth of the inversion pulse for reduction of metallic artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199 (06) W735-W742
54 Sutter R, Ulbrich EJ, Jellus V, Nittka M, Pfirrmann CWA. Reduction of metal artifacts in patients with total hip arthroplasty with slice-encoding metal artifact correction and view-angle tilting MR imaging. Radiology 2012; 265 (01) 204-214
55 Fritz J, Fritz B, Thawait GK. et al. Advanced metal artifact reduction MRI of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants: compressed sensing acceleration enables the time-neutral use of SEMAC. Skeletal Radiol 2016; 45 (10) 1345-1356
56 Seo S, Do WJ, Luu HM, Kim KH, Choi SH, Park SH. Artificial neural network for slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) MRI. Magn Reson Med 2020; 84 (01) 263-276
57 Dietrich O, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. Artifacts in 3-T MRI: physical background and reduction strategies. Eur J Radiol 2008; 65 (01) 29-35
58 Kästel T, Heiland S, Bäumer P, Bartsch AJ, Bendszus M, Pham M. Magic angle effect: a relevant artifact in MR neurography at 3T?. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32 (05) 821-827
59 Guerini H, Omoumi P, Guichoux F. et al. Fat suppression with Dixon techniques in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging: a pictorial review. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2015; 19 (04) 335-347
60 Omoumi P. The Dixon method in musculoskeletal MRI: from fat-sensitive to fat-specific imaging. Skeletal Radiol 2022; 51 (07) 1365-1369
61 Kirchgesner T, Acid S, Perlepe V, Lecouvet F, Vande Berg B. Two-point Dixon fat-water swapping artifact: lesion mimicker at musculoskeletal T2-weighted MRI. Skeletal Radiol 2020; 49 (12) 2081-2086
62 Hodler J. Technical errors in MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol 2008; 37 (01) 9-18
63 Chin TY, Campbell RSD. Arthrographic technique pitfalls. In: Peh WCG. ed. Pitfalls in Musculoskeletal Radiology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017: 99-119
64 Meek RD, Mills MK, Hanrahan CJ. et al. Pearls and pitfalls for soft-tissue and bone biopsies: a cross-institutional review. Radiographics 2020; 40 (01) 266-290
65 Yan YY, Chou H, Peh WCG. Imaging-guided biopsy. In: Ladeb MF, Vanhoenacker FM. eds. Imaging of Primary Tumors of the Osseous Spine. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2024: 129-149
66 Kransdorf MJ, Jelinek JS. Musculoskeletal biopsy pitfalls. In: Peh WCG. ed. Pitfalls in Musculoskeletal Radiology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017: 149-163
67 Saifuddin A, Palloni V, du Preez H, Junaid SE. Review article: the current status of CT-guided needle biopsy of the spine. Skeletal Radiol 2021; 50 (02) 281-299
68 Rajeswaran G, Healy JC. Ultrasound-guided musculoskeletal interventional techniques pitfalls. In: Peh WCG. ed. Pitfalls in Musculoskeletal Radiology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017: 121-138
69 Walter WR, Burke CJ, Adler RS. Tips and tricks in ultrasound-guided musculoskeletal interventional procedures. J Ultrason 2023; 23 (95) e347-e357
70 Mallinson PI, Munk PL. Musculoskeletal interventional techniques pitfalls. In: Peh WCG. ed. Pitfalls in Musculoskeletal Radiology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer: 2017: 139-148
71 Zhang Y, Peng Q, Sun C. et al. Robot versus fluoroscopy assisted vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2022; 166: 120-129
72 Espahbodinea S, Ku JC, Costa Alves Junior A. et al. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation-pearls and pitfalls. J Spine Surg 2023; 9 (01) 13-16
73 Singh DK, Kumar N, Rustagi A, Jalan D, Krishna LG, Sharma A. Percutaneous CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma: potential pitfalls and complications and how to avoid them. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2022; 28: 101869
74 Tomasian A, Jennings JW. Percutaneous minimally invasive thermal ablation of osseous metastases: evidence-based practice guidelines. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 215 (02) 502-510
75 Yan YY, Walsh JP, Munk PL. et al. A single-center 10-year retrospective analysis of cryoablation for the management of desmoid tumors. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2021; 32 (09) 1277-1287